The Myth of Mutual Submission, part 2

In a previous post, I cited to you Stu Webber’s book “The Four Pillars of a Man’s Heart.” Webber in pages 75 and 76 dismisses “mutual submission” (also known as “egalitarianism”) as being un-Biblical. Essentially, people who hold this view believe that husbands and wives should submit to one another, and not just wives submitting themselves to their husbands. They say that “there is no unique authority or leadership role for the husband in a marriage,” and that “men and women are equal and carry responsibilities in both the home and church which are mutual or interchangeable between the sexes.”

The traditional (read that “conservative”) view is known as “complementarianism” which holds that “while men and women are equal before God, they serve him in complementary roles which are not always identical and in some cases ought not to be.”

As Webber stated in his book, the main argument against “mutual submission” is that you cannot find a verse in the New Testament explicitly telling husbands to submit to their wives. On the other hand, wives are explicitly told in several instances to submit to their husbands.

Ephesians 5

22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Colossians 3

18. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Titus 2

5. To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

1 Peter 3

1. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2. While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6. Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

The quotes I used above are from two articles which I highly recommend to you. These articles are:

[1] The Myth of Mutual Submission by Wayne Grudem, Ph.D at http://www.soulcare.org/Counseling/MythofSubmission.html

[2] Christ-Centered Marriages: Husbands and Wives Complementing One Another by Chad Brand, at http://www.baptist2baptist.net/printfriendly.asp?ID=230

Essentially, Grudem says that “the whole idea of mutual submission as an interpretation of ‘be subject to one another’ in Ephesians 5:21 is terribly mistaken idea.” He also states that “it can be advocated only by failing to appreciate the precise meanings of the Greek words for ‘be subject to’ and ‘one another.’” Grudem concludes that “the idea of mutual submission in marriage (is) a myth without foundation in Scripture at all.”

Brand, on the other hand, says that people who preach mutual submission “hijack” the Bible in order to make it fit their egalitarian viewpoint. He says, “Texts are either accepted, rejected, ignored, or revised according to the way they fit in with that motif. But this is a mistake of the greatest gravity. The revisionist position does not of itself arise from Scripture. Rather, it is plain that while the Bible teaches full equality, it does not affirm egalitarianism or interchangeability in all things, but rather calls for distinguishable roles between men and women.”

Please let me reiterate here what I said in a previous post. The headship of men and the submission of women cannot be and should never be used as an excuse or justification for spousal abuse. One extreme example of how these doctrines have been twisted by some twisted men as an excuse for domestic violence is the true story of Lucy Tisland, narrated in the book “Battered into Submission” by James and Phyllis Alsdurf.

Lucy Tisland and her children endured years of abuse inflicted by her violent husband. One child suffered brain damage and died at the age of seven after he was severely beaten by the father. When Lucy cried during the funeral service for this child, she was brutally beaten by her husband. To the people in their community, however, Lucy and her husband presented a picture of a trouble-free marriage.

One time, after her husband came home agitated over a brewing problem of his sexual involvement with a teenager, he threatened Lucy that he will kill her and all their children after his nap. Lucy, believing that her husband would actually carry out such a threat, got a gun, and then shot her husband in the forehead.

Lucy was charged for the death of her husband, but she was acquitted by the jury, after she recounted her years of abuse at the hands of her husband.

By the way, Lucy Tisland’s husband was a Baptist pastor from Minnesota.

As I mentioned before, I have been giving lecture-seminars in Republic Act 9262 or the “Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004” to barangay officials and day care center workers. I have given lectures in Laguna (Victoria, Alaminos, Pila, Kalayaan, and Lumban), Cavite City, and in Sto. Tomas, Batangas.

RA 9262 now expressly provides for what is known as the “battered woman syndrome as a defense.” Section 26 states, to wit,

“Survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.

“In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists.”

The “battered woman syndrome defense” has already been applied in our country in the Supreme Court decision involving Marivic Genosa in January 2004. I understand that recently, an abused woman (a policewoman) convicted of killing her husband (also a police officer) was released from the Correctional Institution for Women, after RA 9262 was applied in her case.

Under RA 9262, abusive men also cannot claim that they were under the influence of alcohol, illicit drugs or any other mind-altering substance when they carried out their abusive acts against their wives, live-in partners, dating or sexual partners. Section 27 of RA 9262 classifies this as a prohibited defense.

(You can find the complete text of RA 9262 in my "Legal Issues and Family Matters" website at www.familymatters.org.ph. Please look for it under either "Relevant Laws" or "Legal Procedures.")

On February 26, upon the invitation of Ptr. Many Orara, I will be giving a seminar on the essential provisions of the Family Code and RA 9262 for the members of Maranatha International Baptist Church in Parang, Marikina.